|
『食品研究』集合了来自世界各地食品和农业相关专业大学生博主的声音和观点。不要错过梅根的第二篇博文，文中揭露了人们更喜欢餐厅的四个原因。 There is, I think, a bit of a difference in psyche between nutrition majors and food studies majors. For example, at the welcome meeting of our "New Grad Student Seminar" our advisor noted that there would be homemade macaroni and cheese, as well as root beer floats, adding, "Now you know this is the Food Studies Program and not the Nutrition program." 我总觉得营养专业的人和食品研究专业的人的认知是有那么一点儿不一样的。举个例子吧，在“新生研讨会”的欢迎会上，我们的导师提示会上供应自制通心粉、奶酪和漂浮沙士（译者按：一种上面加冰激凌的无醇饮料），他补充道：“现在你们可以确定这是一个食品研究课程而不是营养课程了。” There are a few cross-over students with nutrition backgrounds in my program, but for the most part, we Food Studies students are more concerned with questions like, "What are the economic implications on growers of this free trade coffee?" than "How is my body going to convert this vegan taco into energy?" 我的专业里有一些有营养学背景的跨专业学生，但对于大多数食品研究专业的学生来说，他们更关心诸如：“影响这些自由贸易咖啡的种植者的经济因素是什么？”的问题，而不是“我的身体是如何把素食玉米面转化成能量的？” To make sure we know something about the body's requirements and reactions to diet, we have to take a "Nutrition in Food Studies" course. This sometimes feels a bit like a "Math for English Majors" course (which I also took during undergrad), because its breadth is so huge. Our lectures cover everything from basic chemical reactions, to the difference between mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats. 要确保我们了解身体对于饮食的需求和反应，我们必须上一个“食品研究中的营养”的课程。这看起来有点像“英语专业的数学”课程（我在本科的时候修了这个课程），因为他涵盖的范围实在太宽了。我们的课程内容涵盖从基本化学反应到单不饱和脂肪和多不饱和脂肪的区别。 But our assignments have been an awesome tool in narrowing the focus of the class. For example, we were asked recently to examine the packaging of a food product geared toward children, and reconcile the colorful front-of-box claims with the black-and-white grid of the nutrition label on the back. My conclusion: Parents have it hard. For a few major reasons. 但是我们的作业有效地把研究的范围收窄了。举个例子，我们最近的作业是调查一款针对儿童的食品，使其外包装上色彩缤纷的正面标语与背面的黑白格子营养标签相符。我的结论是：父母们很难做出判断。这里有几个原因。 To start with, food companies are focusing now more than ever on creating compelling packaging and in-store marketing. In 2006, food companies spent $195 million, or 12 percent of their total marketing outlay, to target consumers in-store, where 89 percent of the products they were advertising contain high levels of sugar, sodium, and/or saturated fat. 首先，食品公司越来越重视吸引眼球的食品包装和店内营销。2006年，食品公司花费了1亿9千5百万美金相当于12%的营销支出在店内营销上，推广的食品中89%含有高水平的糖份、纳和饱和脂肪。 In-store and packaging-based promotion includes everything from putting athletes on boxes to sweepstakes, and from in-box prizes to products that boast philanthropic donations with every purchase. Although there has been some self-regulation within the industry, it has applied more extensively to television advertising than packaging. (Remember how long General Mill’s self-imposed "Smart Labeling" program lasted? Less than three months!) 店内营销和立足于产品包装的推广方式包括把运动员的形象印在包装上，包装内附送奖品以及通过把捐赠与单次购买捆绑的方式。在电视广告上，尽管有着相关的规管条例，但这些推广方式的使用更加泛滥。（记得通用磨坊的“智能标签”么？只推出三个月就被迫叫停了！） Second of all, packaging is designed to keep parents from looking at the nutritional label. By cherry-picking nutritional (and more likely pseudo-nutritional) information available in huge lettering on the front of colorful boxes, food companies aim to appease any health or allergen concerns parents might have. But "Great source of calcium!", "No Trans Fat!", and "Gluten Free!" are weak stand-ins for the full nutritional picture. 其次，包装设计的一个目的就是防止父母查看营养标签。通过在彩色包装的正面用巨大的字体显示精心编写的营养信息（极有可能是假的），食品公司企图缓和父母对于健康和过敏的担忧。但“富含钙质！”，“不含反式脂肪！”，以及“不含谷蛋白！”根本不能取代完整的营养信息。 And finally, almost all nutrition labels on food targeted at children use the recommended daily intake values for an adult who consumes 2,000 calories a day. This happens even on food for toddlers, who need just HALF the calories of adults, according to the American Heart Association. 最后，几乎所有针对儿童的食品营养标签都使用成人的推荐每日摄入量，后者每日消耗的能量是2000卡。甚至在针对幼儿的食品标签上也出现了同样情况，而幼儿每日所需热量只是成人的一半，据美国心脏学会说。 The result is that all of the percentage daily values on the nutrition labels are completely skewed. While a cup of cereal will have the same 26 grams of carbohydrates regardless of who is eating it, that will account for 9 percent of the recommended daily intake of carbohydrates for adults and 18 percent for a two-year-old. So even if parents' eyes do make it as far as the nutrition label, there is another chance to be misled. 结果导致所有营养标签上的每日所需营养百分比都被扭曲了。一杯含有26克碳水化合物的麦片，能满足成人每日碳水化合物推荐摄入量的9%，却能满足2岁儿童每日碳水化合物推荐摄入量的18%。因此，即使父母们的火眼金睛都盯着营养标签，也有被误导的机会。 These are three pretty significant obstacles getting in the way of parents who want to make healthy choices for their children. The next question, of course, is how to fix them. 以上是三个阻碍父母们保证孩子吃得健康的常见的障碍。下一个问题，是如何绕过这些障碍。 Megan is a student blogger for the Food Studies feature on GOOD's Food hub. If you enjoyed this, you should check out the rest of the Food Studies blogger gang here as well as Megan's personal blog, Foodie Can't Fail. 梅根是GOOD食品频道的学生博主。如果你喜欢这篇博文，你也可以了解一下其他的食品研究博客以及梅根的个人主页，美食家不能出错。 Image: 1963 Froot Loops Packaging from Krazy Kids' Food: Vintage Food Graphics by Dan Goodsell and Steve Roden, supplied by the author. 图片来源：Krazy儿童食品1963年圈圈饼包装：古典风格食品图案由 Dan Goodsell 和 Steve Roden 创作，图片由作者提供。 |
|
|
